spin

I wonder if we could construct a set of guidelines with regard to minimum standards of evidence when dealing with historical issues on this forum. They could be applicable for handling both theist and non-theist content, so that the more banal discussion could be eliminated.

How often do we suffer these interminable "how awful is the bible" stuff and "how literally correct it is" waffle based on crap sources. Trash Kersey Graves and Josh McDowell and require better sources.

We could eliminate the next wave of idiocy through a content requirement. :wave:

Also needed is a citation requirement, so that people must say exactly where a quote comes from. This is a matter of respect for the people you are talking to. Your citation may need to be examined in order to be fully understood, but, if people don't have the source, they can't understand what is cited except for the literal significance of the uncontextualized words, which isn't necessarily much help.

Could such guidelines/rules be introduced? And would they be helpful? Could they be enforced? Is there anything else useful that could be implemented? Would you want these sorts of things implemented?


spin

dog-on

...and I would like to see the original autographs of any text cited texts, before any conclusions can be derived as to what such texts actually portray.

Especially if the texts in question are religious in nature and are attributed to someone known as Paul.



(Actually, you make a very valid suggestion, Spin. )

mountainman

Whether the issue addresses the OT/Hebrew Text
or whether the issue addresses the NT literature.
Many of the issues are specific to one or the other.
Some people have not sorted this out yet.
Threads are usually about one or the other.
The bible has two separate parts ....


All the stuff you suggest is worthwhile to examine.
Citations are fundamental for research and for exchange.
They should be the common denominators of exchange.

But how to implement poses all sorts of problems.
Separate records or some collaborative citation database?

Best wishes,

Pete Brown

andrewcriddle

Hi Spin

Sometimes interesting discussion arises from someone posting "I've come across claim XXX, I don't know where it is supposed to come from, I don't know if its true; can anyone help ?"

Would this type of post be frowned on under your suggested guidelines ?

Andrew Criddle

dog-on

Yea, like the question I have always wanted an answer to;

Is running, naked guy in Mark, the same guy JC is said to have taught the mysteries of the kingdom of God to, in Secret Mark?

If so, why does this guy always have to be naked?

and another thing...

When Paul says that some infiltrators infiltrated his gang to spy on the freedom they have in Christ, what freedom would that be, exactly?

Are these related? Inquiring minds want to know...

spin

The intention is not to stifle discussion, but to stop incessant reheats of discredited writer X, or theory Y, says this so it must be correct. This sort of thing could be referred to the guidelines.

Open questions about various claims flying around should be dealt with in the good spirit of the forum.


spin

dog-on

Does that include running, naked guy?

mens_sana

Running, naked guy was probably just late for the Olympics ... and streaked through accidentally.

matthewthomas

Some thoughts of a lurker:

I think there is an important difference between someone how says, "I've come across claim XXX, I don't know where it is supposed to come from, I don't know if its true; can anyone help ?", and someone who simply repeats claim XXXX as if it were true.

For example, I'd say there is a diffence between someone saying, "I've read that the naked running guy is somehow linked to Secret Mark (and not the Olympics) - does anyone know any more about this and is it a reasonable point?" and someone saying, "By the way, the naked running guy is the same guy JC is said to have taught the mysteries of the kingdom of God to, in Secret Mark." Perhaps asertions like the latter should be made to cite something: at least where the claim was first read, if not primary sources. I think the former is in the spirit of open enquiry and should be encouraged. I would be against any set of binding forum rules that made the former more difficult.

Perhaps a sticky thread with links to some online discussions of historical method and standards of evidence could be organized? Anyone not providing useful evidence to back up assertions could be pointed towards the thread. then ignored until they provide something useful...

Matthew

Julian

I think that spin is talking about sources used for evidentiary purposes, as opposed to seminal or supplemental items for the object of discussion.

While I complete agree with spin, such a policy could not be practically enforced here. However, one would hope that people serious about advancing their knowledge, and knowledge in general, would follow such practices naturally.

I do find that I generally do not quote sources unless I state something of a highly controversial nature. I am, however, always conscious of the importance of a source and try to be ready to provide one should such a request occur.

Julian